Europeans’ world-leading drinking habits are putting their health at risk, but governments are failing to use higher taxes to help curb consumption, warned the World Health Organization. Beer has become more affordable in 11 EU countries since 2022, and less affordable in six, the WHO report revealed Tuesday. There was a similar but even more dramatic trend for spirits, which became more affordable in 17 EU countries and less affordable in two. And for wine, 14 EU countries do not tax it at all, including big producers Italy and Spain, the report found. The EU includes seven of the 10 countries with the highest per-capita alcohol consumption globally, with Romania, Latvia and Czechia among the biggest drinkers. Alcohol is a major driver of cancer, with risk scaling alongside higher consumption. It’s also linked to a wide range of illnesses including cardiovascular disease and depression, all of which are adding pressure to stretched health systems. The WHO said governments should target alcohol consumption to protect people from its ill effects. Increasing the cost of booze through taxes is one of the most effective measures governments can take, the WHO said. Yet, some EU countries have minimal or no taxes on certain types of alcohol. The fact that more than half of EU countries don’t tax wine at all is “unusual” by international standards, WHO economist Anne-Marie Perucic said. She pointed out that the more affordable alcohol is, the more people consume. “Excluding a product is not common. It’s always for political reasons, socio-economic reasons [like] trying to protect the local industry. Clearly, it doesn’t make sense from a health perspective,” Perucic told POLITICO. Those 14 countries span the EU’s northern and central regions, such as Germany, Austria and Bulgaria. “More affordable alcohol drives violence, injuries and disease,” said Etienne Krug, director of the WHO’s department of health determinants, promotion and prevention. “While industry profits, the public often carries the health consequences and society the economic costs.” The EU has touted its plans to protect its wine industry from threats including declining consumption and climate change. EU institutions agreed a package of measures to prop up the sector in December. Meanwhile, the European Commission recently backed down from proposing an EU-wide tax on alcopops; the sweet, pre-mixed alcoholic drinks that taste like sodas, as part of its Safe Hearts plan.  In a separate report, the WHO reported that sugary drinks have also become more affordable in 13 EU countries since 2022, data published in a separate WHO report found. A diet high in sugar is linked to obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, fatty liver disease and certain cancers.

BRUSSELS — Hungarian Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi has said he didn’t know anything about a spy ring that allegedly operated out of Budapest’s embassy to the EU while he was in charge. When quizzed on the scandal by EU lawmakers on Monday, Várhelyi said he hadn’t been approached by intelligence services to pass on secret information. “Have I been approached by the Hungarian or any other services? No, I have not,” he told MEPs in a European Parliament committee meeting. A joint investigation by Hungarian outlet Direkt36, Germany’s Der Spiegel, Belgian daily De Tijd and others reported in October that Hungarian intelligence officials disguised as diplomats had tried to infiltrate EU institutions and recruit spies between 2012 and 2018. At the time the reports surfaced, Várhelyi told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that he was “not aware” of the alleged Hungarian efforts, a denial he repeated on Monday. “I had no knowledge of this claim which was made in the press,” he told MEPs in response to a question from Greens lawmaker Daniel Freund. Freund had asked the commissioner if he had known of any of the activities supposedly run out of the Hungarian permanent representation to the EU, which he worked at from 2011 and ran from 2015. Hungarian officials working in the EU institutions at the time described the network to POLITICO as an open secret in the Belgian capital. Following the media reports, Hungarian opposition leader Péter Magyar — who also worked at the Hungarian permanent representation under Várhelyi — accused him of withholding information about his time as an ambassador. “In my opinion, Olivér Várhelyi, the current EU Commissioner and former EU Ambassador (and my former boss), did not reveal the whole truth when he denied this during the official investigation the other day,” Magyar wrote in a Facebook post. “It was a common fact at the EU Embassy in Brussels, that during the period of János Lázár’s ministry in 2015-2018, secret service people were deployed to Brussels,” he continued. The Commission last year set up an internal group to look into the claims that Hungarian officials had spied on the EU institutions. Commission spokesperson Balazs Ujvari told reporters on Monday that its work is “ongoing.” Gerardo Fortuna contributed to this report.

The German government rejected claims by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that Berlin prosecuted doctors and patients for refusing Covid-19 vaccinations or mask mandates. “The statements made by the U.S. Secretary of Health are completely unfounded, factually incorrect, and must be rejected,” German Health Minister Nina Warken said in a statement late Saturday. “I can happily explain this to him personally,” she said. “At no time during the coronavirus pandemic was there any obligation for doctors to carry out vaccines against Covid-19,” Warken added. “Anyone who did not wish to offer vaccines for medical, ethical or personal reasons were not criminally liable and did not have to fear penalties,” she said. Warken added that “criminal prosecution took place only in cases of fraud and forgery of documents, such as the issuing of false vaccine certificates” or exemption certificates for masks.  “Doctors [in Germany] decide independently and autonomously on the treatment of patients,” the minister stressed, adding that “patients are also free to decide which treatment they wish to receive.” Kennedy said in a video post on Saturday that he had written to Warken after receiving reports that Germany was restricting “people’s abilities to act on their own convictions” in medical decisions. He claimed that “more than a thousand German physicians and thousands of their patients” faced prosecution for issuing exemptions from mask-wearing or Covid-19 vaccination requirements during the pandemic. Kennedy did not provide specific examples or identify the reports he cited, but he said Germany was “targeting physicians who put their patients first” and was “punishing citizens for making their own medical choices.” He accused Berlin of undermining the doctor–patient relationship and replacing it with “a dangerous system that makes physicians enforcers of state policies.” Former German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach also pushed back on the claims, telling Kennedy on X to “take care of health problems in his own country.”

On Thursday, in a rebuke to the GOP party line, the House of Representatives voted 230-196 to extend the Affordable Care Act’s enhanced premium subsidies for three more years. 17 Republicans defected to join all Democrats in voting for the legislation, after the end of the subsidies sparked the longest-ever federal government shutdown late last year. It remains to be seen whether the extension will pass the Senate, where a similar three-year extension vote failed in December—but cheers could be heard in the House chamber on C-SPAN after the vote. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the former House Speaker who played a key role in the 2010 passage of the ACA, posted on X that “today is a happy day” and that “the Senate must immediately take up this bill to ensure no American is pushed out of coverage.” > Today is a happy day. House Democrats have passed a bill to extend Affordable > Care Act tax credits so health care remains affordable and accessible for > America’s working families. > > The Senate must immediately take up this bill to ensure no American is pushed > out of coverage. > > — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) January 8, 2026 At the end of last year, enhanced subsidies expired due to Republicans’ and Democrats’ inability to reach a deal on the Biden-era expansion, leaving many Americans facing record premium spikes. As I previously reported, Republican politicians have pushed for a health savings account model, which has shortcomings for people with high health care costs. It’s unclear how many fewer people signed up for ACA marketplace plans for 2026 by December 15, as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has not released data since December 5. ACA marketplace enrollment remains open through January 15. KFF estimates that the average cost of ACA marketplace plans has increased by 26 percent this year. Thursday’s vote involved sidestepping Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who has shepherded GOP opposition to ACA benefits, with a vote yesterday for a discharge petition to bring the vote for a three-year extension to the floor. Nine relatively moderate Republican representatives defected from Johnson to join a party-line Democratic vote for the discharge petition. During the debate that preceded the vote, many Democrats shared stories of constituents who faced the prospect of unaffordable health care without the enhanced subsidies. Some Republicans lamented that ACA marketplace plans can include abortion coverage, and claimed that the ACA benefits insurers more than patients. If the extension passes the Senate and is signed into law by President Donald Trump, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 6.2 million more people will be enrolled in ACA marketplace plans by 2029. Now, the ball is in the Senate’s court.

LONDON — The union representing British nurses is under fire from some of its own members over what they say is an opaque investment strategy linked to companies investing in Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories. A report sent to Royal College of Nursing (RCN) management by activist group Nurses for Palestine and NGO Corporate Watch, and obtained by POLITICO, argues that the union’s choice of investment managers Legal & General and Sarasins is at odds with its own ethical investment policy. Members of the group say they don’t know exactly which shares the union holds in its portfolio, because the union’s management hasn’t informed them. The report points to a list of companies held by the RCN’s fund managers, including U.S. tech firm Palantir and Israeli arms-maker Elbit Systems, which activists say should be enough for the union to put its money elsewhere. A spokesperson for the RCN declined to say which companies were in its portfolio when contacted by POLITICO. The group said it was “committed to social responsibility” and stressed that it did not invest in weapons manufacturing or any “ethically unacceptable practices.” ‘TRUE ETHICAL INVESTMENT’ The Nurses for Palestine and NGO Corporate Watch report draws on a United Nations investigation into what its human rights council calls Israel’s “Economy of Genocide” to identify companies that activists say link fund managers to Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories. The International Court of Justice is currently considering allegations of genocide against Israel, while an independent U.N. inquiry found Israel was committing genocide against the Palestinians. Israel has adamantly rejected those allegations and argued it upholds its obligations under international law. The companies named in the UN report include U.S. tech firms that provide Israel with cloud and artificial intelligence technology. These are among the most widely held shares in the world and are mainstays in the portfolios offered by popular fund managers, which often track the performance of the stock market. A Palantir spokesperson told POLITICO the company rejected its inclusion in the U.N. report and referred to previous statements clarifying its partnership with the Israeli military. The report — which follows two open letters whose signatories include 100 RCN members — does not present evidence that the union directly holds shares in companies more directly involved in the arms trade. But it argues that “true ethical investment” should look beyond investors’ own portfolios and at their fund managers’ “wider practices.” The RCN spokesperson said: “Despite the globalised nature of investments, our indirect exposure — to companies that we may not directly invest in — is a fraction of a single percentage.” According to its latest annual report, the RCN Group (including the union and its charitable foundation) had a combined investment portfolio worth £143.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2024. Sarasins said in a statement that it takes a “rigorous approach to identifying and assessing any potential exposure to human-rights risks across the many companies we invest in on behalf of our clients.”  “The situation in Gaza is evolving, and we are in the process of considering targeted engagement approaches and discussing these with expert contacts and stakeholders,” the firm said. A spokesperson for L&G said all of its investments were in line with international laws and regulations and that any holdings in the companies named in the report were part of “broad, global market indices.”

People who stop taking weight-loss drugs regain body mass four times faster than those who lost their excess pounds through diet and exercise, according to an analysis of the latest studies. The additional benefits from taking weight-loss drugs, such as improvements in cholesterol and blood pressure, were also reversed when patients quit the medications, the study found. The research, published in the British Medical Journal on Thursday, adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests life-long treatment of obesity is needed to maintain control of the condition. But the high cost of the latest drugs — as well as their side effects — present barriers to long-term use. “We know that obesity is a chronic relapsing condition. We know that when treatment stops, weight is regained. And so, some kind of treatment needs to be continued. What [that] treatment should be, I don’t know,” co-author Susan Jebb, professor of diet and population health at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, told journalists. Rates of obesity and overweight are growing rapidly on the continent, with around 51 percent of people in the EU aged 16 years or over being overweight in 2022. Obesity significantly increases the risk of chronic illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease and cancers, and health systems are struggling to cope. Researchers analyzed weight gain from 37 trials of multiple weight-loss drugs, including older medications and the newer GLP-1s. The latest drugs, including Novo Nordisk’s diabetes and weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy and Eli Lilly’s Mounjaro, saw the greatest weight loss and the fastest weight regain when treatment stopped. Compared with another analysis of behavioral weight management programs supporting low energy diets and exercise, weight regain was faster after ending medication than after ending behavioral programs. THE LONG-TERM DILEMMA The newer weight-loss drugs have seen a boom in uptake across Europe and America, despite their high prices. Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro soared in popularity after demonstrating roughly 15 percent weight loss in trials, and were pounced on by celebrities and influencers. However, around half of people who take these drugs will stop them after one year. Side effects such as nausea and vomiting, costs or dissatisfaction with weight loss as it plateaus are driving decisions to halt treatment, lead author Sam West, a postdoctoral researcher also at the Nuffield department at the University of Oxford, told journalists during the briefing. Most people in the U.K. — around 90 percent — pay privately for their weight-loss medication, Jebb said. But those who access it through the National Health Service are subject to a two-year cap on access to the drugs, known as GLP-1s. Similar limits apply in other EU countries. Dimitris Koutoukidis, associate professor in diet, obesity and behavioral sciences at the University of Oxford, suggested the U.K. may not be getting the value for money it envisioned with these weight-loss drugs. The model used to assess whether Lilly and Novo’s medicines were cost-effective assumed people would regain their lost weight after two years, he told journalists — but their study shows weight is regained at around 1.5 years. “It is really hard to treat obesity and keep the weight off long-term,” Jebb said. “That should make us put even more effort into preventing weight gain in the first place. And if we could transform our food environment to make it easier for people to manage their weight it would stop them gaining weight in the first place and help people — after a successful weight loss attempt — to keep it off.” “These treatments are not a whole solution,” she added.

Faced with an ageing population and rising chronic disease rates, Europe wants to make its citizens healthier. It also needs to keep its most powerful industries happy. In the basket of health policies that EU lawmakers rushed to get across the line before Christmas, industry was the big winner: The pharmaceutical, food and drink sectors walked away with a set of major policy wins — and (potentially) healthier profits. While the pharma industry previously feared losing some of its monopoly rights on new drugs, the Commission this month offered it an extra year of patent protection for novel biotech drugs — among the most expensive treatments in the world. The food and drink sectors, meanwhile, successfully pushed back against proposals to tax ultra-processed foods and alcopops, for now. On Dec. 16 the Commission published its Biotech Act and Safe Hearts Plan, which landed just days after a long-awaited update of the pharmaceutical legislation. Taken together, they seek to incentivize industries to innovate and do business in Europe, improve access to medicines, and tackle the burden of cardiovascular disease. The pharma industry broadly celebrated the biotech proposal. The Biotech Act “reflects priorities we’ve intensively advocated to keep Europe globally competitive in life sciences,” Ognjenka Manojlovic, head of policy at European pharmaceutical company Sanofi, told POLITICO. That includes accelerating clinical trials, boosting intellectual property, and strengthening financing for Europe’s biotech ecosystem, Manojlovic said. The pharmaceutical sector had pushed for longer monopoly rights in the pharma legislation. In the end they were kept at the current standard eight years — instead of being cut by two years as the European Commission had initially proposed. For Europe’s public health insurers, who pay for drugs, the decisions taken to maintain and then extend market protections for medicines are hard to square. “We are puzzled by the Commission’s intentions,” said Yannis Natsis, director of the European Social Insurance Platform, a network of Europe’s social insurance organizations, warning that taxpayers will have to pick up the bill. Meanwhile, health campaigners are also unhappy at the Commission’s “missed opportunity” to tackle obesity and heart disease with junk food taxes — as proposed in an earlier draft of the Safe Hearts Plan. Samuele Tonello, at consumer organization BEUC, said the Safe Hearts Plan “lacks teeth” to better protect consumers from unhealthy foods, and flagged the “urgency of [cardiovascular diseases].”  A MAN ON A MISSION Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi has made no secret of his support for industry, and has championed the Commission’s competitiveness mantra since taking office in late 2024. Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi has made no secret of his support for industry, and has championed the Commission’s competitiveness mantra since taking office in late 2024. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images The standout feature of his end-of-year bonanza was the 12-month patent extension in the Biotech Act I — legislation that was split in two late in the day, allowing Várhelyi to meet his end-of-year deadline for the pharma component. The proposal came just a week after the Commission, countries and MEPs clinched a deal to reform Europe’s pharmaceutical laws, in which IP rights were among the last issues to be settled. Updates to the pharma laws were a legacy of the last Commission, whereas the Biotech Act became something of a personal mission for Várhelyi. He repeatedly stressed that there was “no time to lose” in delivering a targeted policy aimed at revitalizing Europe’s flagging biotech industry, which risks being overtaken by competition from China and the U.S. Few commissioners are more vocal than Várhelyi about the premium they place on the competitiveness of European industry.  Industry insiders had heard whispers of his plans to expand IP incentives for the biotech sector, even if Council representatives were dismayed not to have been informed in advance — especially with the ink barely dry on the Pharma Package. That’s not to say pharma is happy with its lot. Industry lobby group the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) tempered its praise of the Biotech Act, lamenting that the extra year of monopoly rights would only apply to a “limited subset of products.”  The extra year of protection is tied to the Commission’s efforts to locate more pharma research and manufacturing in Europe. It would apply only to new products, tested and at least partially made in Europe.  But the generics sector, which makes cheaper, off-patent drugs to compete with branded medicines, sees the Biotech Act as a further sweetening of what is already one of the world’s most generous IP systems. Lobby group Medicines for Europe claims each year of delayed competition for the top three biologic drugs would cost countries €7.7 billion. Longer IP “will have a dramatic impact on healthcare budgets and delayed patients’ access to essential medicines,” said Adrian van den Hoven, head of the lobby. These kinds of estimates would normally be included in an impact assessment published alongside the proposal, but in its haste to get the Biotech Act out the Commission didn’t do one. POLITICO asked the Commission for an estimate of what the extra year of patent protection would cost. A Commission spokesperson would not give a figure but said they had used the impact assessment for the pharma legislation as a reference. “It is also important to stress that the number of products eligible for an additional year of SPC will be limited to only those that are truly innovative and tested and manufactured in the EU. The approach is deliberately targeted to incentivise genuinely innovative therapies that deliver a clear added value for patients and support European innovation,” the spokesperson said. LUCKY ESCAPE FOR UPFS The big food and drink sectors are on shakier ground with Várhelyi. The commissioner has repeatedly made known his distaste for ultra-processed food, and an early leaked version of the Safe Hearts Plan included new taxes on unhealthy highly processed foods and alcopops. But the final proposal showed the Commission had undertaken a significant climbdown. Concrete targets to tax unhealthy food and drink in 2026 were gone, replaced with a much woollier commitment to “work towards” such a levy. Alcopops were excluded altogether.  Industry lobby FoodDrinkEurope took a far more measured tone on the final plan than its explosive reactions to the earlier leaks, but that may well ramp up again if and when health tax proposals emerge. The text suggests the soft drinks industry may be the Commission’s first target if it does decide to pursue new levies, while UPFs remain in Várhelyi’s sights. “In the next couple of years, we will need to tackle the issue of ultra-processed food much more,” he told MEPs in December. For now, though, the plan seems to have let industry off easy. Health NGOs saw it as a disappointment, given its lack of hard-hitting policies to reduce consumption of UPFs and other unhealthy products. While the pharma legislation is all wrapped up, the Biotech Act still needs to win the approval of EU countries and the European Parliament. For the food and pharma sectors, the proposals set out this month are confirmation they have allies in the Berlaymont.

Donald Trump started his second term by calling the European Union an “atrocity” on trade. He said it was created to “screw” Americans. As he imposed the highest tariffs in a century, he derided Europe as “pathetic.” And to round off the year, he slammed the continent as “weak” and “decaying.” In the midst of all this, Ursula von der Leyen, the EU’s top official, somehow summoned the composure to fly to Trump’s Scottish golf resort to smile and shake hands on a one-sided trade deal that will inflict untold pain on European exporters. She even managed a thumbs up in the family photo with Trump afterwards. Yes, it’s been one hell of a year for the world’s biggest trading relationship. The economic consequences will take years to materialize — but the short-term impact is manifest: in forcing Europe to face up to its overreliance on the U.S. security umbrella and find new friends to trade with. With a warning that the following might trigger flashbacks, we take you through POLITICO’s coverage of Europe’s traumatic trade year at the hands of Trump: JANUARY As Trump returns to the White House, we explore how America’s trading partners are wargaming his trade threats. The big idea? Escalate to de-escalate. It’s a playbook we later saw unfold in Trump’s clashes with China and Canada. But, in the event, the EU never dares to escalate. Trump’s return does galvanize the EU into advancing trade deals with other partners — like Mexico or Latin America’s Mercosur bloc. “Europe will keep seeking cooperation — not only with our long-time like-minded friends, but with any country we share interests with,” von der Leyen tells the World Economic Forum the day after Trump is sworn in. FEBRUARY As Trump announces that he will reimpose steel and aluminum tariffs, von der Leyen vows a “firm and proportionate response.” The bloc has strengthened its trade defenses since his first term, and needs to be ready to activate them, advises former top Commission trade official Jean-Luc Demarty: “Especially with a personality like Trump, if we don’t react, he’ll trample us.” That begs the question as to whether trade wars are as easy to win, as Trump likes to say. The short answer is, of course, “no.” Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, meanwhile, packs a suitcase full of concessions on his first mission to Washington. At the end of the month, Brussels threatens to use its trade “bazooka” — a trade-defense weapon called the Anti-Coercion Instrument — after Trump says the European Union was created to “screw” America. MARCH We called it early with this cover story by Nicholas Vinocur and Camille Gijs: Trump wants to destroy the EU — and rebuild it in his image. As Trump’s steel tariffs enter force, Brussels announces retaliatory measures that far exceed those it imposed in his first term. And, as he builds up to his “Liberation Day” tariff announcement, the EU signals retaliation extending beyond goods to services such as tech and banking. (None of these are implemented.) APRIL “They rip us off. It’s so sad to see. It’s so pathetic,” Trump taunts the EU as he throws it into the sin bin along with China, Japan, Taiwan and Korea. In his Liberation Day announcement in the White House Rose Garden, Trump whacks the EU with a 20 percent “reciprocal” tariff. Von der Leyen’s response the next morning is weak: She says only that the EU is “prepared to respond.” That’s because, even though the EU has strengthened its trade armory, its 27 member countries can’t agree to deploy it. The bloc nonetheless busies itself with drawing up a retaliation list of goods made in states run by Trump’s Republican allies — including trucks, cigarettes and ice cream. MAY The EU’s hit list gets longer in response to Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs — with planes and automobiles targeted in a €100 billion counterstrike that looks scary on paper but is never acted on.  We report exclusively that Brussels is ramping up contacts with a Pacific trade group called the CPTPP. And we assess the chances of Trump pressuring the EU into a big, beautiful trade deal by threatening to raise duties on European exports to 50 percent. The verdict? Dream on!  JUNE The setting shifts to the Canadian Rockies — where a G7 summit takes on a G6 vs. Trump dynamic as other leaders seek ways to cooperate with him on Russia and China even as he pummels them with tariffs. Von der Leyen tries her best, turning hawkish on China in a bid to find common ground. Back in Brussels, at a European leaders’ summit, von der Leyen announces her pivot to Asia — floating the idea of a world trade club without the U.S. JULY As the clock counts down to Trump’s July 9 deal deadline, the lack of unity among the EU’s 27 member countries undermines its credibility as a negotiating partner to be reckoned with. There’s still hope that the EU can lock in a 10 percent tariff, but should it take the deal or leave it? The deadline slips and, as talks drag on, it looks more likely that the EU will end up with a 15 percent baseline tariff — far higher than Europe had feared at the start of Trump’s term. Brussels is still talking about retaliation but … yeah … you already know that won’t happen. With Trump in Scotland for a golfing weekend, von der Leyen jets in to shake hands on a historic, but one-sided trade deal at his Turnberry resort. Koen Verhelst also flies in to get the big story. “It was heavy lifting we had to do,” von der Leyen said, stressing that the 15 percent tariff would be a ceiling. AUGUST Despite the thumbs-up in Turnberry, recriminations soon fly that the EU has accepted a bad deal. EU leaders defend it as the best they could get, given Europe’s reliance on the U.S. to guarantee its security. The two sides come out with a joint statement spelling out the terms — POLITICO breaks it down. Not only does the EU come off worse in the Turnberry deal, but it also sacrifices its long-term commitment to rules-based trade in return for Trump’s uncertain support for Ukraine. The realization slowly dawns that Europe’s humiliation could be profound and long-lasting. With the ink barely dry on the accord, Trump takes aim at digital taxes and regulation that he views as discriminatory. It’s a blast that is clearly aimed at Brussels. SEPTEMBER The torrent of trade news slows — allowing Antonia Zimmermann to travel to Ireland’s “Viagra Village” to report how Trump’s drive to reshore drug production threatens Europe’s top pharmaceuticals exporter. OCTOBER EU leaders resist Trump’s pressure to tear up the bloc’s business rules, instead trying to present a red tape-cutting drive pushed by von der Leyen as a self-generated reform that has the fringe benefit of addressing U.S. concerns.    NOVEMBER Attention shifts to Washington as the U.S. Supreme Court hears challenges to Trump’s sweeping tariffs. The justices are skeptical of his invocation of emergency powers to justify them. Even Trump appointees on the bench subject his lawyer to tough questioning.  A row flares on the first visit to Brussels by U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Lutnick presses for concessions on EU digital regulation in exchange for possible tariff relief on steel. “Blackmail,” is the counterblast from Teresa Ribera, the EU’s top competition regulator. DECEMBER The year ends as it started, with another Trump broadside against Europe and its leaders. “I think they’re weak,” he tells POLITICO. “They don’t know what to do on trade, either.”

There may be hope for millions of Americans whose health insurance premiums are set to skyrocket in the new year, but not before Congress gets back from its two-week holiday vacation. Four moderate Republicans signed on to a Democratic petition to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies for three years on Wednesday, effectively giving Democrats the numbers they needed to force a floor vote in Congress. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) led the petition, which allows a majority of House members (218 votes) to force a bill to a floor vote. The petition received support from all 214 Democrats and four Republicans who defied GOP leadership in signing —Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Mike Lawler (R-NY), Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.), and Ryan Mackenzie (R-Pa.). The subsidies date back to 2010, when Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. The effort was a signature achievement of President Barack Obama’s first term, and became colloquially known as “Obamacare.” The law effectively created marketplaces where people could buy health insurance if they weren’t covered by their employers, Medicare, or Medicaid. Buyers were incentivized with tax credits, a type of subsidy. Those subsidies got a big boost in government funding under President Joe Biden in 2021 as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and many more people became eligible for them. But the credit extended only through 2025. ACA marketplace enrollment was 24.3 million people in 2025, hitting a record-high for the fourth consecutive year. Now, unless Congress extends them again, many enrollees will experience dramatic spikes in their premium costs. According to Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan healthcare policy group, subsidized enrollees are estimated to pay more than double for premiums. They found that the average cost of $888 in 2025 would increase to $1,904 in 2026.  Even though House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) acknowledged at a Tuesday press conference that around a dozen Republicans were working to reduce health care costs for their constituents, “many of them did not want to vote on this ObamaCare COVID-era subsidy the Democrats created.”  Rep. Fitzpatrick said he voted with Democrats because GOP leadership rejected compromise after he spent months offering ideas and amendments.  “The only policy that is worse than a clean three-year extension without any reforms, is a policy of complete expiration without any bridge,” Fitzpatrick said in a statement on Wednesday. “Unfortunately, it is House leadership themselves that have forced this outcome.” Fitzpatrick is one of several Republicans who face competitive challenges in their electoral districts in 2026. But all of this may be too little, too late. The ACA funding bill is not expected to go to the floor before the end-of-the-year deadline unless Johnson decides to speed up the vote, which doesn’t seem likely. House rules state a bill can only go to a floor vote at least seven legislative days after a discharge petition. The House will only be in session until Friday before a two-week holiday. House members come back on January 6, so a floor vote will most likely take place in the second week of January.

STRASBOURG — The European Parliament has voted today to set up an EU fund to expand access to abortion for women across the bloc, in a historic vote that divided lawmakers. The plan would establish a voluntary, opt-in financial mechanism to help countries provide abortion care to women who can’t access it in their own country and who choose to travel to one with more liberal laws. European citizens presented the plan in a petition — through the campaign group “My Voice, My Choice.” Lawmakers in Strasbourg voted 358 in favor and 202 against the proposal, and 79 MEPs abstained. The topic sparked animated discussions in the European Parliament plenary on Tuesday evening. MEPs with center-right and far-right groups tabled competing texts to the resolution put forward by Renew’s Abir Al-Sahlani on behalf of the women’s rights and gender equality committee. Supporters of the scheme argued it would help reduce unsafe abortions and ensure women across the bloc have equal rights; those who oppose it, mostly from conservative groups, dismissed it as an ideological push and EU overreach into national policy. Abortion laws vary greatly across the EU, from near-total bans in Poland and Malta to liberal rules in the Netherlands and the U.K. The fund could be a game changer for the thousands of European women who travel every year to another EU country to access abortion care. The European Commission now has until March 2026 to give a response. This story is being updated.